Sacramento Mountain Lions team owner Pelosi promises back pay for coaches

The United Football League (UFL) forum
Andy J
Site Admin
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:09 am
Location: San Antonio,Texas
Contact:

Post by Andy J » Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:39 pm

[quote=""preeths""]He's not overly pessimistic. The reality is that starting a new league is a very difficult, expensive proposition which few can realistically even consider. That's where this discussion has to start. Expect a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to discussing the possibilities for a new league simply because of the difficulty involved and the tombstones of the dead leagues which have tried. It simply isn't as simple as grabbing even a small piece of this big revenue/ratings pie which the NFL and college football have grown for decades.[/quote]

Maybe not in comparison to the rest of you all. But what you call skepticism is what I call lack of vision.
AndyG

User avatar
preeths
Site Admin
Posts: 8457
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 11:34 pm
Contact:

Post by preeths » Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:38 pm

You're entitled to that viewpoint, of course, but I think it sets up an unnecessarily adversarial relationship with those who might want to see a new league like you, but who might also enjoy discussing the pitfalls (and potential solutions for them) that have derailed league after league.

User avatar
Pounder
Site Admin
Posts: 2730
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: Portland freaking Oregon!

Post by Pounder » Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:15 pm

[quote=""Andy J""]You can call me ignorant ,but your over pessimism clouds your vision. And besides your arrogance takes over because I guess you feel you need to enlighten us "ignorant' ones. There is no wishful thinking here and you have not cornered the market on realistic assessments.[/quote]

I called your statement about Portland and Oregon ignorant, not you.

If you remember where I described the NFL's competition over the years, recall it. The progression is stark:
AFL (merger)
WFL (OK, I ignored them the first time for a reason)
USFL (who won $1 trebled to $3 in an anti-trust decision)
XFL (a light that shone brightly for a month)
UFL (nothing shone brightly there at all)

The UFL came pretty much within the same broadcasting environment as present and got, well, really not much.

There's another thing an alternate football league needs: a wise investor or two, selfless and giving of advice to prospective owners, and can help cover the inevitable mistakes. This crop of American entrepreneurs isn't exactly the most selfless on record.

So to put it another way, this pessimism was earned by action, not simply asserted by faith.
Mean Spirited Blogger #107

4th&long
Site Admin
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:56 pm

Post by 4th&long » Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:58 pm

[quote=""Pounder""]

There's another thing an alternate football league needs: a wise investor or two, selfless and giving of advice to prospective owners, and can help cover the inevitable mistakes. This crop of American entrepreneurs isn't exactly the most selfless on record.

So to put it another way, this pessimism was earned by action, not simply asserted by faith.[/quote]

THIS is the sticking point IMO. Great post. The AFL is regarded HIGHLY and was ultimately successful because the ownership was just what you are alluding to. Same with the currently NFL. Where as say a Donald Trump - screwed the USFL up.

Now can 5-8 investors be found that have those traits? I hope so. I think it will happen again, too much money in FB for it not to be tried. Either Spring or Fall.

Andy J
Site Admin
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:09 am
Location: San Antonio,Texas
Contact:

Post by Andy J » Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:50 am

Failure after failure and for some reason every few years someone bites. That should tell you something . It's called vision and it's not a difficult one Pro football is by far the most popular sport . And just because we have had a long line of failures , that in and of itself isn't reason enough to say that no one will ever succeed.
AndyG

User avatar
Pounder
Site Admin
Posts: 2730
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: Portland freaking Oregon!

Post by Pounder » Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:37 pm

[quote=""Andy J""]Failure after failure and for some reason every few years someone bites. That should tell you something . It's called vision and it's not a difficult one Pro football is by far the most popular sport . And just because we have had a long line of failures , that in and of itself isn't reason enough to say that no one will ever succeed.[/quote]

The quality of the investors involved keeps going down, not up. That's more the crux of the problem, even if it's a sad statement that Donald Trump is a middle step in that regression.
Mean Spirited Blogger #107

User avatar
preeths
Site Admin
Posts: 8457
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 11:34 pm
Contact:

Post by preeths » Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:47 pm

Many people forget that even the AFL of the 1960s had a tough time finding enough investors. The Oakland Raiders were a critically underfinanced group, and only a loan from Buffalo's Ralph Wilson kept them afloat. It wasn't easy then, and it's much more difficult then. Sure, another group is likely to try it, but viability is another thing.

4th&long
Site Admin
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:56 pm

Post by 4th&long » Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:26 pm

[quote=""preeths""]Many people forget that even the AFL of the 1960s had a tough time finding enough investors. The Oakland Raiders were a critically underfinanced group, and only a loan from Buffalo's Ralph Wilson kept them afloat. It wasn't easy then, and it's much more difficult then. Sure, another group is likely to try it, but viability is another thing.[/quote]

Exactly

Agreed, it was not easy, but when accomplished it was extremely successful. A league is just that, a collection of teams. It requires everyone to be working in the same direction. Not easy but very doable.

Btw on a side note, buffalo would not be in the nfl today if not for the AfL. It's a poor city with declining attendance while a city like Portland is much bigger and more affluent. There are cities that a new league could exploit, just like the AFl of the 60’s

Andy J
Site Admin
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:09 am
Location: San Antonio,Texas
Contact:

Post by Andy J » Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:19 pm

[quote=""4th&long""]Exactly

Agreed, it was not easy, but when accomplished it was extremely successful. A league is just that, a collection of teams. It requires everyone to be working in the same direction. Not easy but very doable.

Btw on a side note, buffalo would not be in the nfl today if not for the AfL. It's a poor city with declining attendance while a city like Portland is much bigger and more affluent. There are cities that a new league could exploit, just like the AFl of the 60’s[/quote]

Yes and expansion in the modern day could be precisely the development of pro football in markets that will never get an NFL team. Goodell even said "we must continue to grow the game." What better way.
AndyG

Andy J
Site Admin
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:09 am
Location: San Antonio,Texas
Contact:

Post by Andy J » Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:27 pm

[quote=""Pounder""]The quality of the investors involved keeps going down, not up. That's more the crux of the problem, even if it's a sad statement that Donald Trump is a middle step in that regression.[/quote]

Not sure if agree with that statement. There has been some lousy investors in past leagues. But there has been a lesser group of investors, because of the uncertain situation with the economy which has lasted for a long time. If anything would forever keep an alternative league from being successful it's that. But this is not the place to discuss the crisis of capitalism.
AndyG

Post Reply

Return to “UFL”